2. The development of the early childhood education and care workforce in Ireland
This chapter discusses the main strengths and challenges faced by Ireland in building and retaining an Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) workforce that can best support quality. It focuses on policies to strengthen the initial preparation and training of the ECEC workforce, strategies for continuing professional development that support staff’s engagement in a range of learning opportunities, policies to improve staff’s working conditions, and approaches to leadership development to create a stimulating environment for both staff and children.
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) professionals are key agents for supporting the quality of an ECEC system. ECEC professionals can profoundly shape children’s everyday interactions, which are likely to influence their learning, development and well-being (OECD, 2021[1]; OECD, 2018[2]). As described in Chapter 1, Ireland has been very active in developing policies to further professionalise its ECEC workforce, as pledged in the country’s First 5 Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families (hereafter referred to as “First 5”). At the time of writing, a Workforce Development Plan for the Early Learning and Care, School-age Childcare and Childminding sector is due for publication at the end of 2021; a National Action Plan for Childminding was published earlier this year; and initial announcements on a new funding model were made in the 2022 Budget at the time of finalisation of this report. These three major plans seek to support the commitments in First 5.
This chapter considers the main strengths and challenges faced by Ireland in building and retaining an ECEC workforce that can best support quality, and makes recommendations to inform discussions on ongoing and future policy developments, summarised at the beginning of the chapter in Box 2.1.
In line with the framework of the Starting Strong VI publication and the Quality beyond Regulations project (OECD, 2021[1]), the discussion focuses on the following five aspects of workforce development:
Policies to improve the qualification of ECEC professionals to work with children and raise their status by setting qualification requirements and regulations for staff in different types of provision.
Policies to make sure ECEC staff are well prepared to foster enriching interactions through broad training that includes quality work-based learning and is well aligned with the curriculum framework.
Strategies for continuing professional development that support staff’s engagement in a range of learning opportunities through time and funding, matching their needs at different career stages.
Policies to improve staff’s working conditions through salaries and employment contracts that reflect staff’s qualifications, and protected time for their range of professional tasks.
Approaches to leadership development to create a stimulating environment for both staff and children through preparation for pedagogical leadership and incentives for quality improvement.
The success of Ireland’s reform agenda to drive the professionalisation of the ECEC workforce to the benefit of children will also depend on the effective and meaningful engagement and the building of consensus among the different parties involved, including providers and staff. While the government and the responsible departments – the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) and the Department of Education (DE) - have been creating platforms and taking steps to consult stakeholders, such as through stakeholder groups to accompany the work on the Workforce Development Plan and reforms of the funding model, this is not necessarily the feeling on the ground. Moreover, it represents a significant challenge in a context where multiple voices try to be heard, not always representing the full range of views within a stakeholder group, but sometimes potentially particular interests. The adequate resourcing of the sector, sequencing and linkage of the different reforms that are underway, and strategies for tracking progress are further elements that will impact the workforce and further development of leadership in settings.
Qualification requirements and regulations
For centre-based settings, attach qualification requirements to categories of staff and not to staff in a particular programme, in line with objectives of the Workforce Development Plan to define roles and career pathways for the ECEC workforce. Use regulations on staff-child ratios to indicate the composition of teams of various categories of staff for the organisation of activities with children depending on their age and on the type of activities.
For home-based settings, advance with plans to increase the regulation of the sector but ensure registration, training and funding reflect the nature of childminders’ work and involve minimum administrative burden for childminders and parents. Build on the meaningful consultation of childminders themselves to develop new regulations.
Initial preparation and training
Build on the momentum of newly created standards, criteria and guidelines for qualification programmes to improve the quality of programmes through quality assurance, funding mechanisms and the qualification of ECEC staff. Monitor the impact of recent changes on the experience of students to inform future adjustments (e.g. extent of practical training in further education).
Support ECEC centres in offering quality practical placements through adequate resources, guidance/standards and regulations. The government should facilitate partnerships and trust between centres and institutions in co-developing and assessing placements and programmes. Based on further consultations, strengthen work-based learning in initial preparation for instance by considering the introduction of an apprenticeship scheme or an approach based on similar principles.
As committed to in First 5, encourage some joint training/courses in the preparation for ECEC staff and primary teachers to help raise the recognition of work done by ECEC staff, inform professional practices of staff in different levels of the education system and support transition practices.
Continuing professional development (CPD)
Build and support a larger ecosystem of formal and informal opportunities for professional development based on an assessment of current staff engagement and needs. Support centre-embedded learning and learning between centres with dedicated strategies (e.g. by creating time in schedules, building team leader capacity and creating resources to support team work).
Put in place a clear strategy to realise the goals for upskilling the workforce based on the engagement of employers, staff and government. This should include the recognition of prior learning or skills acquired on the job, flexibility to combine work and study through part-time and blended learning, study leave and funding arrangements. Increase awareness of available funding schemes for current staff and eligibility criteria.
Re-assess the current architecture of CPD provision by gaining a comprehensive view on the funding, capacity and quality standards of different organisations, such as the City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs), National Voluntary Childhood Organisations (NVCOs) and Better Start. Improve synergies between providers in the short term, while working towards a more unified system of quality support in the long term. This should include stronger processes for assessing and monitoring the quality of provision and how it meets staff and system needs.
Working conditions
Make the improvement of ECEC staff working conditions a priority and signal this by committing to stable long-term public funding allocated to ECEC settings according to the fulfilment of criteria for improved working conditions (e.g. wages and conditions of employment contract) as recently done with the introduction of a Joint Labour Committee (JLC) and announcements on the 2022 budget.
Continue efforts and discussions with stakeholders to define ECEC categories of staff, their required competencies/qualifications and career pathways, as done during preparation of the Workforce Development Plan, and how they can be implemented locally.
Commit to maintain the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) on a long-term basis and continue to make the allocation of additional funding conditional to the achievement of working conditions standards. Acknowledging that the scope of agreements under a JLC is determined by the parties to the JLC and not by the government, the JLC should cover: minimum wages and pay scale for different categories of staff; the definition of working hours with the inclusion of protected time for activities to be performed without children; terms and conditions for employment. The objective should be to move towards a full-time employment contract as a basis with common minimum non-wage clauses for all categories of staff and wages related to the category of staff, qualification and experience. As part of the JLC, the question of staff hired under a succession of short-term contracts with breaks in between can also be discussed.
Leadership
Develop pedagogical leadership capacity in settings. This should include a clearer definition of the role of centre managers (who can be owners of their ECEC centre or employed by a provider) and adequate preparation for their role through dedicated leadership training. The role of room leaders should also be rethought and clarified, to include pedagogical leadership in rooms or centres more broadly, including with staff for younger children.
Set incentives for the management of centres to be driven by quality improvement through the inspection and quality support system, and free capacity of managers to focus on the experience of children by reducing the administrative burden that funding and inspection create.
Context
In Ireland, there are no nationally agreed upon job titles or occupational profiles for different ECEC staff, although this is an objective of the Workforce Development Plan to define categories of ECEC staff along with their roles, responsibilities and qualification requirements. Half of ECEC staff are described in surveys as “early years assistants”. A third of staff are described as “room leaders”, which would correspond to a “teacher” in other countries but the term “teacher” is not used in Ireland for ECEC. The remaining part includes centre managers or deputy managers who would correspond to “leaders” in other countries. To ease readers’ understanding, regardless of their familiarity with the Irish context, this chapter uses the terms “assistants”, “room leaders (i.e. teachers)” and “leaders” for these three categories of staff.
Raising the levels of qualifications of staff working in the ECEC sector as well as the quality of education and training has been a core element of Ireland’s recent policies to improve the quality of provision for children. Successive governments have put a particular focus on raising the formal qualifications of the workforce through legal requirements, financial incentives (namely through “higher capitation” rates as part of the Early Childhood Care and Education [ECCE] programme which provides two years of free universal pre-school and additional capitation for centres with an Inclusion Co-ordinator in place) and some funding for training (e.g. government bursaries awarded through the Learner Fund since 2014). As part of the current First 5 strategy and the Workforce Development Plan, the country is now pursuing the next stage in the professionalisation and upskilling of its ECEC workforce.
Revisions to ECEC sector regulations in 2016 introduced a minimum qualification requirement for all staff working directly with children. Since then, all staff in registered settings subject to the regulations require at least an ISCED 4 qualification (post-secondary non-tertiary education equivalent to level 5 on the National Framework for Qualifications, NFQ, see Annex Figure 2.A.1). Exemptions for a small share of staff from this requirement to facilitate the transition (‘Grandfather’ declaration) was due to expire in September 2021 but was subsequently extended for a period of two years subject to a number of conditions. Moreover, staff working as “room leaders” (i.e. teachers) with children in the ECCE programme must hold an ISCED 5 qualification (short-cycle tertiary education equivalent to NFQ level 6), and providers can apply for additional funding (“higher capitation”) where a room leader holds a degree-level qualification at ISCED 6 (Bachelor’s equivalent to NFQ level 7) or above (DCEDIY, 2021[3]; DCYA, 2019[4]; Frontier Economics, 2021[5]).
The same qualification requirements apply to registered childminders in home-based settings, although only a very small percentage of childminders are actually registered as the legislation exempts and excludes some categories (i.e. those taking care of six children or less, of which not more than three are pre-school children). The qualifications and training of the majority of childminders are therefore unknown. However, the government has committed to bringing childminding into the scope of regulation in the coming years (e.g. through the First 5 strategy and a National Action Plan for Childminding) (DCEDIY, 2021[3]; DCYA, 2019[4]; Frontier Economics, 2021[5]).
The qualifications of staff in centre-based settings have indeed risen as a result of these changes, with 94% of staff who work directly with children holding the minimum ISCED 4 qualification in 2019/2020, compared to 71% in 2010. As with all data from the Annual Sector Profile published by Pobal referenced throughout this chapter, these numbers cover ECEC and a proportion of school-age childcare. An increasing percentage of staff have an ISCED 6 qualification or higher (26.6% in 2019/2020, compared to 18% in 2015/2016). According to data from mid-2020, a small share were still working in the sector under the ‘Grandfather’ declaration, exempt from the minimum ISCED 4 qualification (NFQ level 5), while many already had a relevant qualification at this level or higher (Pobal, 2021[6]).
Recent and ongoing policy initiatives seek to raise the level of qualifications further. The country’s First 5 strategy includes a commitment to progress towards a graduate-level workforce in the ECEC sector, with the specific target of at least 50% of staff in registered centres holding a degree by 2028 (at least ISCED 6 or NFQ level 7). Based on the current qualification profile, this means increasing by 17 percentage points the percentage of degree holders in the next seven years (DCEDIY, 2021[3]; DCYA, 2019[4]; Frontier Economics, 2021[5]).
The plan to raise qualifications requires attention to quality training, adequate working conditions and the recognition of the experience of current staff
Raising qualification requirements and levels in the ECEC workforce speaks to the increased recognition of the importance of education and training for high-quality provision. As studies from different national contexts and for different types of provision suggest, highly qualified staff tend to be better able to sustain enriching and stimulating interactions with children (Manning et al., 2019[7]; Lin and Magnuson, 2018[8]). However, not all research finds a direct link between higher qualifications and higher process quality (von Suchodoletz et al., 2020[9]), pointing towards the importance of content and delivery of initial education (OECD, 2021[1]).
As analysed in depth in the following section on initial education, some positive changes have also been introduced in this respect with the publication of new standards for the development of ECEC training programmes. Such standards, together with a continued focus on quality assurance, are important building blocks in the government’s strategy to equip the ECEC workforce with the additional skills needed to yield the expected results in quality improvement. A sustained focus on quality in programmes is also important since requirements and incentives to gain new qualifications entail a risk of creating poor quality programmes to enable staff to gain the new certifications without a true engagement in professional learning and improvement. This may have been the case with the introduction of the ECCE programme in 2010 and the related financial incentives for upskilling (e.g. creation of poor quality online programmes). The government could consider monitoring the impact of higher qualifications on process quality to inform future policies.
Entry standards generally also signal the level of knowledge and skills expected of staff and contribute to shaping the social status of a profession (OECD, 2019[10]). In this context, higher levels of qualification to work in ECEC may also help make the sector more attractive and raise social recognition. However, higher qualifications need to be underpinned by commensurate remuneration. At present, efforts to upskill the workforce appear to be facilitating turnover as ECEC staff search for better remunerated work (e.g. in primary school, as teachers or special needs assistants). As highlighted further below in the chapter, improving working conditions is therefore an important pre-condition for realising the potential of higher qualifications. This is recognised through the First 5 strategy, ongoing work on the Workforce Development Plan, the establishment of a Joint Labour Committee for the sector and the development of a new funding model (Government of Ireland, 2019[11]; DCEDIY, 2021[3]; DCYA, 2019[4]).
Lastly, the experience of current practitioners needs to be sufficiently valued and recognised, so that they are able to meet the new qualification requirements (also see section on professional development below) and access potential new roles and career progression (also see section on working conditions below). Care needs to be taken in the message that the country’s upskilling policy communicates to current staff, 50% of which are not envisaged to hold a degree qualification (at least ISCED 6, NFQ level 7) in 2028. Equally important, discussion and reflection are needed on the role(s) of staff with lower levels of qualifications in ECEC settings (e.g. as an assistant or co-professional in a room, a substitute to ensure the staff-child ratio when an adult leaves a room, etc.).
Some policies have unintendedly led to the concentration of staff with higher qualifications in larger private for-profit centres and with children of older ages
The distribution of staff with different levels of qualifications across and within ECEC settings also requires more attention. To tackle the effects of contextual factors that put children on unequal footing, such as socio-economic background, quality staff also need to work with less privileged children (OECD, 2020[12]; OECD, 2019[10]). In Ireland, at present, staff in private for-profit settings have on average higher qualifications than those in community non-profit settings which tend to serve the most disadvantaged children (see Chapter 1) (Table 2.1).
This may have to do with the additional costs higher qualifications imply (e.g. facilitating training to gain new qualifications and rewarding higher qualifications with higher wages) and which can be more difficult to finance for non-profit or smaller for-profit providers. While no data on differences in staff qualifications by other centre characteristics are available (e.g. “full day” vs. “sessional”), there also appear to be differences in the financing of different types of settings (e.g. also linked to child-staff ratios for different age groups). In the end, plans to further upskill the workforce need to be accompanied by funding and workforce policies, as committed in the First 5 strategy, to ensure that these plans do not drive further splits in the sector between different types of provision and locations.
Different requirements and incentives for “room leaders” (i.e. teachers) employed through the ECCE programme have led to a situation where babies and toddlers are educated by the least qualified staff (Table 2.2) (Branigan and Ciarán, 2020[13]). These questions of staff sorting are inextricably linked to the resourcing of the sector and should be considered in ongoing and future work on the funding of ECEC.
The distribution of staff should also be considered in the potential design of a career structure, and the qualifications and experience attached to different staff roles. Indeed, roles should be defined for the sector as a whole and not be attached to a specific scheme or programme. The Aistear curriculum framework that covers children from 0 to 6 in all settings should bring some continuity in ECEC provision. However, programme-based funding, and differences in regulations and inspections (as analysed in Chapter 3) tend to fragment provision into programmes with varying fees and quality, even if some centres in fact provide all activities. With the sector being privately provided, the government cannot directly affect the organisation of provision but can make sure that its policies support and encourage an integrated approach.
Ongoing work on the definition of roles and responsibilities with attached qualification and experience requirements is important in this regard. Regulations on staff-to-child ratios can vary with children’s age and types of activities to support different combinations of staff working with children and ensure that the youngest children are also exposed to highly qualified staff. Moreover, ECCE room leaders (i.e. teachers) could have a pedagogical leadership role with staff working with younger children (see section on leadership). The planned extension of education inspections to non-ECCE rooms goes in the right direction and will support a more integrated approach to ECEC provision (see Chapter 3).
As new roles and career structures are developed and implemented, some innovative models of shared staffing across settings could nevertheless be explored given the large number of small centres. For instance, the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) which seeks to foster inclusive ECEC environments supports one specially trained inclusion co-ordinator (INCO) per setting, regardless of the size of the setting. While one person in a setting can fulfil multiple roles, this can still represent particular difficulties for settings to implement. However, the private nature of ECEC provision in Ireland and the fact that staff are employees of private employers make it difficult for centres to share staff in practice.
Plans to bring childminders into regulations and require minimum levels of education are welcome, but need to be developed further with care to retain staff in the sector
Plans to upskill the workforce in the largely unregulated childminding sector and to ensure that minimum quality standards are met in this sector are also ambitious and welcome (also see Chapter 3). While childminding staff in different countries often have fewer qualifications, positive associations between staff qualifications and enriching pedagogical experiences for children have also been documented for home-based settings (Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[14]; Schaack, Le and Setodji, 2017[15]).
Childminders play an important role in the provision of ECEC in Ireland, and appear to be a popular choice for childcare and early education, even if their exact numbers and profiles are unclear (see Chapter 1). Options to regulate the sector therefore need to be carefully considered, especially in terms of qualification requirements, and policy developments need to ensure the voice of childminders and the nature of their work within their own homes is taken into account. Indeed, public consultations for the National Action Plan for Childminding highlighted mixed views with regards to qualification requirements for childminders, with some stakeholders suggesting they should be equivalent to those of staff working in ECEC centres, and others suggesting there should be no qualification requirements at all (DCEDIY, 2021[16]). This was echoed during the review team’s missions, with some stakeholders highlighting the difficulty of setting the right standards in general, but also in relation to staff in centre-based ECEC.
Continuing assessment of the main issues to be tackled to ensure quality in the childminding sector will be needed, possibly adopting a pragmatic approach so as to not lose high-quality staff. Such an assessment could be informed by local knowledge and engagement through the City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs), local agencies that provide advice and support to a range of stakeholders, including childminders, as well as Childminding Ireland, a national membership organisation.
The regulation and funding of childminders should build on learning from previous and existing experiences in this respect. This includes the Childminding Development Grants which provide some financial support for investment in equipment, tax exemptions through the Childcare Services Tax Relief, or previous practices of childminders benefitting from training opportunities, police checks, or a public listing through voluntary notification with their local CCC. Minimising the administrative burden for registration and funding, which can already be considerable for ECEC centres, on childminders will be essential to facilitate participation and uptake (e.g. through support within the CCCs or other local structures).
The National Action Plan for Childminding already formulates a roadmap for greater regulation, including the removal of some of the exemptions for registration with the regulator (Tusla), and the creation of both a Foundation Training Programme and a Quality Development Programme (tied to an ISCED 4 or NFQ level 5 award) (DCEDIY, 2021[16]). The specifics are still to be defined as part of a next phase of consultation, research and development, and as informed by the Workforce Development Plan. The action plan nevertheless already formulates some helpful principles, such as the importance of a “balanced” and “incremental” approach so as not to drive childminders out of the sector while ensuring quality of ECEC, suitable training formats that take into account that childminders work on their own, the recognition of prior learning and availability of sufficient funding. Extending the scope of regulation to childminding while enabling access to the NCS through childminding would also support parents accessing this option, who currently do not benefit from this subsidy and pay full fees, as negotiated with their childminder.
Context
Initial education and preparation to work in the ECEC sector is offered in further education and training as well as higher education institutions. Further education providers, which include among others the country’s 16 Education and Training Boards (ETBs) that deliver a range of local education services, including secondary education, adult education and apprenticeships, offer qualifications at ISCED levels 4 and 5 (NFQ levels 5 and 6), that is tertiary and post-secondary non-tertiary education. Higher education institutions, that is mainly universities, technological universities and institutes of technology, offer awards at degree-level (ISCED 5 and higher, NFQ level 6 and higher). In line with changing qualification requirements for employment in the ECEC sector in Ireland, the number of degree programmes, and students graduating from them, has increased substantially. In 2007/2008, 11 higher education institutions were offering relevant degree programmes to a total of 1 259 students, a figure that had risen to 16 institutions serving 3 341 students by 2017/2018 (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]).
The Department of Education (DE) holds policy responsibility for the quality of initial training in both further and higher education. This is done in co-ordination with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY), which has the lead policy role in the quality of provision and workforce development, and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation, and Science (DFHERIS) who is responsible for the core funding and governance of the further and higher education sectors. There is no professional regulatory body for the ECEC sector, contrary to school education and health and social care that have such bodies in the form of a Teaching Council and the Health & Social Care Professionals Council (CORU). In the absence of professional self-regulation, the DCEDIY maintains a list of approved qualifications that meet statutory regulations and funding requirements (see https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/297c05-early-years-recognised-qualifications). Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), a government agency responsible for maintaining the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ), among others, has a statutory remit to develop award standards for ECEC related qualifications and validating programmes. SOLAS, the Further Education and Training Authority, is responsible for the overall direction and funding of the further education and training sector (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]; DCEDIY, 2021[3]).
Recent initiatives provide an opportunity to review and improve initial preparation, but a continued focus on quality assurance and development is needed
There have been several efforts to improve the quality of initial education programmes for ECEC professionals. In particular, efforts have been made through new standards to ensure that the curriculum and quality frameworks, Aistear and Síolta respectively, are better integrated and that programmes include more practical training. These changes seek to respond to concerns identified also in an earlier review and survey of professionals by the DE, which highlighted gaps in these areas (DES, 2019[17]).
In 2019, the DE and DCEDIY published Professional Awards Criteria and Guidelines (PACG) for education programmes at bachelor level (ordinary and honours degrees) (ISCED 6 and 7, NQF levels 7 and 8), which built on previously commissioned research and discussions from a working group hosting the main institutions involved (DES, 2019[17]; Frontier Economics, 2021[5]). These criteria and guidelines, the first to be established for ECEC degrees in Ireland, provide a useful framework for institutions to design and deliver their programmes, promoting a shared vision of the knowledge, practices and values that students should acquire and quality standards for the delivery of programmes. With their publication, the Irish Government has taken more direct actions to raise standards. A Qualifications Advisory Board (QAB) has been established, involving external experts, to review programmes on their coherence with criteria and guidelines. Following validation by the board, programmes can be included on the list of recognised qualifications maintained and updated by the DCEDIY (DES, 2019[17]).
In parallel, existing standards were also updated for further education training awards (ISCED 4 and 5, NFQ levels 5 and 6), which had last been revised in 2011. These new standards, which are linked to the Professional Award-type Descriptors (PATD) that specify minimum learning achievements as part of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ), were published by Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) in 2019 (QQI, 2019[18]). Following the development of the criteria and guidelines for higher education programmes, the scope of these standards was extended to include awards at higher levels (ISCED 6 and 7, NFQ levels 7 and 8). Only masters and higher degrees (ISCED 8, NFQ level 9 and above) remain outside the scope of any standards. The skills, knowledge and competencies that the standards specify are to be used in the development or review of programmes by individual institutions, awarding and accreditation bodies, and the DCEDIY (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]; QQI, 2019[19]).
In further education and training, the Education and Training Boards (ETBs) took the development of new standards (PATD) as an opportunity to develop new programmes for ECEC, based on a shared curriculum, and informed by research and stakeholder engagement. Programmes include a Certificate in Early Learning and Care (ISCED 4, NQF Level 5) and an Advanced Certificate in Early Learning and Care (ISCED 5, NQF Level 6). The process, which has been led by Dublin and Dun Laoghaire ETB (DDLETB), has created a common curriculum, but each ETB has to apply to the QQI for validation of their own programme(s), incorporating the shared curriculum into their own context (DDLETB, 2020[20]). While it was planned for all boards to incorporate the curriculum into their programmes, this was no longer certain at the time of the main policy mission. How other institutions in further education and training, notably private and commercial providers, would respond to the new ETB curriculum was also unclear.
All these initiatives, which have come into force for programmes from September 2021 onwards, (although students previously enrolled can still graduate from existing programmes) provide good opportunities to review, raise and harmonise the quality of initial professional preparation. This was also acknowledged by stakeholders in both higher and further education during the policy missions, with the new standards being seen as facilitating a process of self-reflection and a chance to raise public confidence in the quality of initial preparation. Where the standards lead to greater harmonisation of programmes, they may also support the development of a stronger shared professional identity among ECEC staff, which is yet to be fully established among the workforce.
Unlike previously when the curriculum framework was not integrated systematically in programmes, they must now also address curriculum implementation, planning and assessment. Initial preparation should therefore now cover a broad range of areas, including playful learning, transitions, diversity and family engagement. This is also the case for the new common curriculum developed for ETB programmes, which reflects Aistear and Síolta in both programme and module learning outcomes, teaching and learning resources, and assessment criteria and guidelines. There appears to be an important focus on curriculum and pedagogy, play, child and family engagement as well as inclusion and diversity. As data collected for the Quality beyond Regulations project suggest, the breadth of programmes is comparable to that in many other countries, and more extensive than in some other participating countries (Figure 2.1).
Nevertheless, some challenges may not yet be sufficiently considered for implementation. For higher education (ISCED 6 and 7, NFQ levels 7 and 8), the existence of multiple standards (e.g. PACG and PATD) creates unnecessary complexity, even if both have reportedly been aligned in their development. Depending on education institutions’ previous experience of self-review, they have reportedly found it challenging to submit to an external assessment, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic context.
Other aspects to keep in mind for the future development of initial preparation programmes are quality assurance of these new programmes, qualifications of programme teaching staff (who also need to familiarise themselves with the new programmes) as well as the mainstreaming of diversity and equity issues in programme curriculum. In further education colleges, the employment of staff from different disciplines (sometimes unrelated to ECEC) as well as working conditions can apparently be an issue, with the latter limiting time for course preparation and feedback to students. As highlighted by a general review of initial teacher education in Ireland, the impact of the changes initiated in the qualification programmes for ECEC staff, including on students’ experiences, needs to be monitored (e.g. through annual or bi-annual surveys of students) (Sahlberg, 2019[21]).
Note: Teachers in Ireland refer to ECCE “room leaders”, assistants to all other staff.
Source: OECD (2021[1]), Starting Strong VI: Supporting meaningful interactions in in Early Childhood Education and Care.
The extent of practical training has also been strengthened, but support for implementation and greater feedback loops within the system are required for quality
Research has long highlighted the important role played by work-based training in supporting context-based learning (Balduzzi and Lazzari, 2015[22]; Flämig, König and Spiekermann, 2015[23]). As prospective staff engage in hands-on activities and deal with challenges of everyday practice, they are provided with opportunities to build and apply new knowledge in real-life situations (Kaarby and Lindboe, 2016[24]). The OECD TALIS Starting Strong 2018 survey (an international survey of pre-school staff) suggests that initial preparation that includes a practical component tends to expose staff to a broader range of content, in particular in areas that are otherwise less commonly integrated into programmes, such as working with a diversity of children or classroom management (OECD, 2020[12]).
The incorporation of professional practice placements in programmes in Ireland then represents another positive change, strengthening links between theory and practice. While higher-level qualifications have been acknowledged for the strong pedagogical knowledge they provide for students, they have often not sufficiently covered practical aspects to the same degree (e.g. child observations, working with a group of young children, changing nappies). Similarly, the extent of work experience as part of ISCED 4 and 5 (NFQ level 5 and 6) programmes has been limited (e.g. as little as a total of 30 hours through a 10-day placement in sessional care), placing much responsibility on ECEC providers and settings to provide practical training to new staff.
Requirements for further education courses (through PATD standards) however are less rigorous than those for higher education (through PACG). The criteria and guidelines for degree-level qualifications (PACG) recommend structured, supervised, and assessed professional practice in a range of settings and age groups for a minimum of 35% of the overall duration of courses. Based on a workload of between 4 500 and 6 000 hours over a course of 3 or 4 years, this equals 525 hours per year. The general standards for all programmes (PATD) set the requirement at 150 hours per year, which should cover work with both children aged 0 to 2 and older children, and offer a variety of learning opportunities, including observation, self-assessment and application of theory and knowledge to practice. The experience of students, training institutions and ECEC settings of the new practice placements, in particular in further education and training, should therefore be monitored to inform their further development. Greater attention also needs to be paid to the capacity of ECEC settings to offer sufficient practicum places of high quality for students, a concern that was frequently voiced during missions of the review team.
More generally, the linkages between education and training institutions, on the one hand, and ECEC settings, on the other, can be strengthened to support quality in initial preparation, as proposed in the Workforce Development Plan. Research highlights the importance of co-operation between training providers and ECEC settings for an authentic and reflective practical experience, and of competence and working condition standards for mentors (Oberhuemer, 2015[25]). Initial preparation is increasingly understood as a system that builds on positive feedback loops between its different parts to drive change. Partnerships should include joint programme design, evaluation and improvement, which requires time, resources and professional agency and trust (OECD, 2019[10]).
Within education and training institutions, linkages across preparation programmes for ECEC and primary education, and interactions among staff and students on these programmes, would also be beneficial, potentially supporting a greater understanding of each other’s work, transition practices and professional practice (Sahlberg, 2019[21]). This is committed in the First 5 strategy and the Workforce Development Plan. As school-age childcare is regulated and new qualifications are developed, linkages should also be considered between these programmes and ECEC qualifications.
Lastly, further careful reflection and discussion about strengthening work-based learning for new professionals could be useful, for instance through the introduction of an apprenticeship scheme. As could be observed during the policy missions, some students may in practice already combine work and study following completion of the first years on their programme and an intermediate award that qualifies them for work in the sector. While this can be challenging in terms of time and responsibilities, it has the advantage of providing students with greater practical experience as staff members with full responsibilities, combined with the study of theory and financial support. Consultations for the Workforce Development Plan suggest that an apprenticeship model could be supported among some stakeholders, but there is also a feeling in the sector that it should be carefully designed (DCEDIY, 2021[3]).
Continuing professional development is pivotal for ECEC staff to extend and update their knowledge and develop new skills (OECD, 2021[1]; Hamre, Partee and Mulcahy, 2017[26]). Recent studies suggest that staff participation in well-designed professional development can be effective to support process quality in ECEC settings, for instance by enhancing staff’s abilities to create close, warm and responsive relationships with children, to manage behaviour, and to stimulate children’s reasoning and language development (Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[14]; Egert, Dederer and Fukkink, 2020[27]; Markussen-Brown et al., 2017[28]; Werner et al., 2016[29]). Participation in professional development can moreover support the development of staff’s professional identity and their well-being, buffer the negative effect of stress and burnout, and boost satisfaction, commitment and retention (Peleman et al., 2018[30]; Sandilos et al., 2018[31]; Totenhagen et al., 2016[32]). Effective adult learning activities typically exhibit features such as responsiveness to context, a strong evaluative dimension of practice, and individual feedback and guidance (OECD, 2021[1]; Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[33]).
In Ireland, continuing professional development for ECEC staff is largely at the discretion of individual settings and providers, leaders and staff. There are no regulations, requirements or recommendations for minimum participation. In terms of offer and activities, 30 City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs) provide training opportunities (as well as other services for the sector), as do a number of National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCOs) (see Chapter 1). Tertiary education institutions participate in the ongoing development of ECEC staff, through initial preparation programmes that are open to experienced staff keen on gaining new qualifications, but also some other short courses and seminars.
More recently, as part of the government’s agenda to improve quality and ensure a more consistent adoption of Aistear and Síolta, the government has taken a more direct involvement in steering professional development, notably with the creation of a dedicated agency, Better Start, and the National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI). The NSAI consists of a range of training and mentoring support services such as workshops and onsite mentoring sessions focused on the Siolta and Aistear frameworks, the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide (an online resource for use by practitioners and others), and the Aistear and Play programme. Important elements of the NSAI include the initiative’s resource development group, which plays a role in developing quality resources, and the steering group, which facilitates co-ordination between different government actors.
Better Start, located in Pobal, a government intermediary agency, provides mentoring and coaching services to ECEC settings through its Quality Development Service (QDS) since 2016. The ECEC specialists employed through this service use in particular the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide as a core resource and support the implementation of the curriculum and quality frameworks. The organisation also provides support for the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) on the topic of the inclusion of children with disabilities (through mentoring, advice and courses) as well as some other trainings and online resources through an Early Years Learning and Development Unit (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]).
A strong focus on formal qualifications needs to be complemented with a broader view of professional learning that meets the improvement needs of a diverse range of staff
It seems that a large proportion of ECEC centre staff in Ireland dedicate some time to further training (84% according to a survey not representative of the full sector carried out in December 2020 and January 2021 by SIPTU, the country’s largest trade union (SIPTU, 2021[34])), but it is unclear if staff who need it the most participate and what type of development activities staff engage in. While the government has ambitious goals for upskilling the ECEC workforce, as described at the beginning of the chapter, the current approach does not seem sufficiently adapted to the various staff profiles with different needs and at different stages of their careers.
New staff need inductions that provide guidance and mentoring from more experienced colleagues to apply their knowledge, adapt to concrete work situations and understand the organisational culture of the workplace. At the same time, induction can create a positive dynamic for staff to engage in subsequent training (OECD, 2020[12]). On the other hand, a substantial share of current staff need to upskill to meet new requirements or to remain attractive to employers as novice staff with higher qualifications enter the workforce. This requires access to formal training, which can be demanding in terms of commitment, cost and time. In 2019/2020, 14% of staff working with children were in the process of acquiring a formal qualification, with 49% of them studying for an ISCED 5 qualification (NFQ level 6), and 33% for a qualification at ISCED 6 (NFQ level 7) or above (Pobal, 2021[6]). Finally, current professionals already with degree-level qualifications (26.6% in 2019/2020 according to Pobal) also need to keep up to date with emerging knowledge and improve their practices, including through less structured types of training.
The relatively strong focus on formal types of education to raise the qualification of current staff would benefit from being embedded in a more comprehensive approach to professional learning that builds on a range of opportunities for different types of staff. More formal development opportunities should be seen as only one component within a much larger ecosystem of a continuum of formal and informal professional learning opportunities (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[33]). As studies suggest, informal learning can also promote staff’s subject and pedagogical knowledge and shape their professional beliefs and dispositions (Kyndt et al., 2016[35]). Some other valuable types of learning are offered (e.g. mentoring and coaching through Better Start’s quality development service), but could be extended more widely. Recognition of the importance of informal learning and learning in teams and among peers has been limited, although the review team heard of some practices in centres (e.g. staff meeting at the end of the day and/or week to reflect together across rooms, using tools such as the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide, an online resource facilitating self-assessments).
Taking a broader view at professional development should also reflect evolving notions of professionalism in the ECEC field and the active role of staff in their own learning as reflective practitioners, both individually and collectively. It would seek to create conditions for staff to embrace a professional growth mind-set, a commitment to continuous improvement and ownership of their practice (OECD, 2020[12]). Such an approach could help make work in the sector more attractive to potential candidates, keep staff motivated and engaged, establish avenues for career progression and ensure high-quality ECEC for children (OECD, 2020[12]).
The review team recognises that professionalising the ECEC workforce is a process that will inevitably take time. As a next step on a journey towards a broader approach to professional development, however, it would be helpful to gain more knowledge about the types of learning that different types of staff currently engage in, what types of learning are supported by centres (on and off site), and what needs of different centres and staff are not yet addressed. This could then inform further strategies to support a broader range of professional learning, that includes informal and centre-embedded learning (e.g. by creating time in schedules, building team leader capacity, creating further resources to support team work). Particular strategies for centre-embedded learning might be necessary for centres of small size or those located in rural parts of the country (e.g. by creating professional networks and digital exchange platforms). Peer learning and networks could also be facilitated through professional development activities aimed at groups of settings, which could also have benefits in economies of scale (Urban, Robson and Scacchi, 2017[36]). Developing a type of voluntary ‘learning log’ or ‘portfolio’ could help recognise the value of different types of learning besides formal qualifications, and make staff aware that this is encouraged.
Learning about current induction strategies for new staff in settings, establishing common expectations or standards about quality induction practices (e.g. preparation of mentors, protocols for team learning, strategies to reduce workloads of novices, etc.) and raising the awareness of existing staff to opportunities for participation in induction activities so they benefit from the perspectives of their new colleagues, should be a further priority. This is also important as students on practical placements are typically limited in the responsibilities they can take on (e.g. interactions with parents, leading a room). At present, the organisation of induction is at the discretion of individual centres (and providers) (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]), so practices will vary widely. There seem to be established practices in some centres however (e.g. providing an introduction to the setting’s curriculum and policies, training in manual handling of children). Indeed, the need to develop induction is recognised in the Workforce Development Plan (DCEDIY, 2021[3]), and was highlighted in the criteria and guidelines for higher education (DES, 2019[17]).
ECEC staff are generally motivated to engage in further professional development, but face some barriers in accessing opportunities and gaining new qualifications
Motivating staff to engage in the continuous learning and development of their practice and ensuring they have access to these opportunities are important considerations for any professional development system (OECD, 2021[1]; OECD, 2020[12]). In Ireland, the strong policy focus on upskilling and training the existing workforce means that staff need to have both the incentives, resources and opportunities to continue developing their skills, also through formal training.
Time is an important resource for (and cost of) participation in training (Bayly et al., 2020[37]). According to findings from TALIS Starting Strong 2018, release time during regular working hours for professional development can encourage greater engagement in development activities (OECD, 2020[12]). In Ireland, only some staff benefit from funded hours during which they can participate in structured training (e.g. through participation in activities organised by Better Start as part of a pilot scheme, which compensates providers for staff participation in training with payments of EUR 14 per hour for up to 18 hours per person in a year). Most staff however have to go for training in their own time, which competes with their personal responsibilities, not to mention other professional ones such as pedagogical planning and meeting with parents. This is different to a number of other countries that provide time incentives for staff to participate in training.
While the government has currently little leeway to influence working conditions (which are set by providers in negotiation with staff as discussed in the next section), there could be more dedicated time for staff to engage in professional improvement, including in peer and team learning activities through more non-contact time. This requires resources in settings to compensate for staff absences (which could be addressed through a new funding model discussed at the time of writing, also see Chapter 1), but also flexibility in the delivery of professional development activities. It can be a challenge for centre staff and childminders to take part in trainings given their work schedules, especially those working in small settings with staff constraints, meaning trainings must then take place during evenings or on weekends. Learning experiences from adjustments to the delivery of professional development in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic could inform the design of more flexible development courses (e.g. blended learning involving some online courses), which were already recommended by Urban et al (2017[36]) as part of a review of occupational role profiles in ECEC in Ireland. There is also little support available in terms of funding for staff to participate in training (Urban, Robson and Scacchi, 2017[36]). Although some settings may reimburse training costs to staff, this is reportedly not very common.
The government’s relatively strong focus on formal types of education to raise the level of qualifications among sector staff requires a clear strategy to enable and incentivise current staff (mostly ISCED 5 practitioners, NFQ level 6) to engage in such training. Such a strategy needs to involve employers, education and training institutions and representatives from the workforce, and would include the possibility for the recognition of prior learning (RPL) or of skills acquired on the job, flexibility to combine work and study through part-time and blended learning, study leave arrangements and adequate funding mechanisms. Creativity in the design of flexible programmes could build on previous experiences, such as the part-time, blended LINC programme (described below in the section on leadership), and would also help address potential geographical barriers to formal training or to allow practitioners to reduce potential costs related to training (e.g. required for relocation).
Given the size of the workforce, upskilling to new qualification levels requires a significant investment and the government is seeking resources from the European Social Fund for this purpose. The costs of the necessary formal training need to be adequately shared between staff, providers and the government as the benefits do not pertain only to the participating staff. Funding arrangements also need to consider the diversity of providers and settings, and the particular challenges faced by some of them to implement the upskilling agenda (e.g. small size providers might have more difficulties to release their staff to go on educational courses or give them paid time off). The experience of the pilot scheme providing payments to settings to release practitioners or to compensate them for participation through Better Start should help inform new funding arrangements, which are also part of ongoing work on the Workforce Development Plan (DCEDIY, 2021[3]) and for a new funding model.
For staff, financial support for gaining new qualifications (to meet minimum requirements to work with children or in an ECCE room, but also simply to engage in further professional learning) has been made available in the past through a bursary scheme, the Learner Fund. Administered by Pobal, this fund has thus far supported over 5 000 professionals to raise their level of qualification. A renewal of this fund seems important, as the review team heard of concerns that the programme would not be open to staff who benefitted from funding in the past to upskill to new requirements. The fund also needs to be aligned with other potential sources of public funding for people in work to progress in their career, such as the Skills to Advance programme offered by SOLAS. Greater information on funding opportunities that is easily accessible to staff interested in gaining further qualifications would also be important.
The recognition of prior learning (RPL) seems an important component that should be further developed in the plans to upskill the workforce so as to recognise comprehensive work done by practitioners, their informal learning on the job and any other structured training they may already have engaged in. This requires thinking about what work experience would mean in terms of qualifications. Both the training provider and the ECEC workplace would likely have a role in the evaluation and recognition of informal learning. The experience of professionalising other social sectors, such as nursing, in Ireland or elsewhere could provide interesting perspectives on how to implement a twin track process and on bringing qualifications and experience together. Plans to build a consistent and coherent approach to RPL within and across the public higher education sector (under the Human Capital Initiative) are welcome but also including further education institutions in efforts to develop RPL is important for the less qualified part of the ECEC workforce. Continued reflection about the linkages between education programmes and the development of micro credentials to facilitate progression and transfers across levels of qualification will also be useful, and involve different types of institutions.
The childminding sector likely needs particular attention to facilitate the participation of childminders in professional learning and to target professional development strategies to their needs. Options include the development of professional networks of childminders, as proposed in the National Action Plan for Childminding, to facilitate practical arrangements for training and professional learning, and the exchange of and co-operation on practices (Box 2.2).
Some research suggests that networking may play an important role in the quality of staff-child interactions in family daycare settings. Opportunities for networking or collaborating with other family daycare providers seem to be associated with higher quality staff-child interactions. In Canada, informal networking was a predictor of better staff-child interactions, although organised networking with other providers was not related to quality (Doherty et al., 2006[38]). The benefits associated with these mechanisms of quality, particularly opportunities for collaboration and networking, may be specific to family daycare settings given the small number of staff and children in each provision.
In most countries, family-care providers work from their own home with limited opportunities for collaboration or networking with other providers. In some European countries, providers jointly take care of children at the same location. In Denmark, family-care providers living in the same neighbourhood organise themselves in so-called “playroom groups” and have regular meetings where children can play together and also organise activities, such as music, movement or dance, as well as outings for the whole group of children. In France, some “relays” for home-based ECEC staff have been developed to enable them to meet among themselves and learn from others, participate in group activities under the lead of ECEC professionals and discuss with them about the content of their work, working conditions and administrative aspects. These “relays” are also opened to parents who can benefit from help to find a home-based ECEC staff or mediation in case of conflict between the family and the home-based ECEC staff. Also in some federal states in Germany and in the United Kingdom, family-care providers are allowed to collaborate and jointly take care of larger groups of children.
Source: OECD (2018, p. 86[2]), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.
The landscape of providers supporting professional development appears fragmented, and there could be more quality assurance and needs assessments
The professional development architecture for ECEC in Ireland, while incorporating a range of valuable expertise on the ground and promising approaches in line with evidence of effective practice, is highly fragmented with several institutions being in charge of the provision of training.
Better Start, established to drive quality in the sector, is acknowledged for the quality of its programmes and services and offers training identified as holding particular promise for professional learning (e.g. combinations of formats, such as workshops, coursework and onsite support) (Egert, Dederer and Fukkink, 2020[27]; Markussen-Brown et al., 2017[28]). During its policy missions, the review team heard positive experiences of working with the Better Start Quality Development Service (QDS) ECEC specialists in quality and curriculum (e.g. helping staff [and parents] to develop a common understanding of what a curriculum is, developing outdoor spaces, working on policies around transitions, etc.). At the same time, though settings and providers no longer need a referral to access QDS coaching, and priority criteria now encompass a wider range of areas (e.g. staff turnover, disadvantage), the offer, scope and resources of the Service seem limited.
There also seems to be some complexity in the organisation of Better Start, with support for the implementation of the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) in settings, as well as other trainings (e.g. sensory processing or sign language were frequently referred to in interviews) being separate to and layered on top of the Quality Development Service (QDS). Moreover, Better Start’s Learning and Development Unit supports the National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI) with a series of dedicated workshops and onsite mentoring as part of Aistear and Play.
Professional development is also provided through the City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs) and National Voluntary Childcare Organisations (NVCOs), for instance offering introductory workshops for Síolta and Aistear and developing networks for childminders in order to share expertise in child safety and well-being, among other subjects. In addition, several institutions or employers themselves provide various types of unstructured ECEC training. Finally, initial ECEC preparation programmes are supposed to be open to existing staff who want to raise their qualifications but providers need to propose flexible programmes in terms of mode of provision, time requirement and content, in addition to any other short-term professional development.
As a consequence of the fragmented approach to training, staff and ECEC centre leaders may not be aware of the full range of available opportunities, partly due to a lack of efficient and coherent communication. A fragmented training landscape also does not support the development of a shared professional identity. There is little visibility on the range and quality of some of the available programmes. The current system likewise seems to not have enough scale to reach all of the workforce systematically, nor processes and feedback loops to assess the needs of practitioners and the quality of the training on offer. For instance, the needs of Irish-medium settings in ECEC do not seem sufficiently met, impacting negatively their provision. Overall, the current system seems to offer little leeway for the government to steer the overall provision of staff development towards certain goals (e.g. through funding or quality assurance). Leadership capacity in centres (discussed in the final section) requires strengthening to design coherent development strategies for staff that support the vision of the setting.
It seems important to get a comprehensive view on the funding, capacity and quality standards of organisations such as the CCCs, NVCOs and Better Start, to improve connections between different providers in the short term, while working towards a more unified system of quality support and development in the long term (as is envisaged in ‘First 5’, with different options being discussed in the Operating Model Review Group) (also see Chapters 1 and 3). A more unified model would not only help ensure greater efficiencies in the resources spent on professional development, but also help impact outcomes for children more systematically.
An assessment of the current landscape would also need to look at the particular strengths and challenges of different approaches and organisations, in view of preserving existing expertise. For instance, the Quality Development Service of Better Start provides intensive support over typically six months, but could provide a more proportional approach to accompany a setting and its staff based on needs. The work of the CCCs (typically the first point of contact for settings and staff seeking support), while representing a source of valuable expertise and local knowledge, is highly variable in terms of capacity and resources, which is also linked to the way they are governed. At the same time, their role and that of the NVCOs has been evolving with the creation of Better Start, which has led them to move more towards administration (e.g. related to the NCS) or other areas (e.g. the creation of digital resources or engagement in research) beyond direct quality support..
In addition to such a mapping of provision, further consideration is needed on how the quality support and development system is monitored and overseen, how it is informed through the assessment of staff and system needs, and how it ties in with monitoring and inspection. A number of departments and institutions are currently involved in the management of professional development initiatives (e.g. DCEDIY, DE). The National Síolta Aistear Initiative (NSAI) illustrates the potential complexity this entails. Led by the DE in collaboration with DCEDIY, who fund the NSAI, the initiative is implemented in co-ordination with the NCCA, with staff split across the DE, the NCCA and Better Start. Insights from monitoring and inspection (e.g. through composite reports) can inform the development of the professional development offer, the planning of activities in settings and the engagement of staff; but the current quality assurance arrangements might make this overly complex (e.g. to bring together insights from different institutions, or to communicate a consistent message to settings and staff) (see Chapter 3).
Breaking down barriers between systems would also be beneficial. Continuing professional development seems rather disconnected from initial preparation, and there could be value in joint development (as well as initial training) opportunities for primary and ECEC practitioners, as is recognised by the Citizen’s Assembly on Gender Equality of Ireland and First 5 (Citizen's Assembly on Gender Equality, 2021[39]; Government of Ireland, 2019[11]), and a review of initial teacher education at universities and colleges (Sahlberg, 2019[21]).
The mapping and assessment of the current professional development landscape and architecture also needs to consider what’s on offer for the childminding sector, whether their needs are met and how opportunities can be provided. In particular, it seems that there is little knowledge of the Aistear curriculum framework in home-based settings, though childminders may have practices that are aligned with its principles. At present, the CCCs as well as Childminding Ireland (one of the seven NVCOs and a membership organisation) constitute important sources of support and training. Six childminding development officers have recently taken up office and the number will double by 2022. They operate on a regional basis and support CCCs with resources and advice, which the CCCs subsequently provide to childminders who in turn inform CCCs about their service. The National Action Plan for Childminding states that a specific training course will be proposed to childminders (building on the former Quality Awareness Programme) as of 2022, covering topics such as child development, child well-being, play, hygiene, and health and safety.
Context
Staff working conditions have an impact on staff well-being, in particular on their emotional well-being, which in turn has an effect on their practices with children and their performance at work. Overall, staff working conditions and well-being can be important drivers of process quality. Furthermore, working conditions and well-being determine the quality of the job (Cazes, Hijzen and Saint-Martin, 2015[40]), which may be a reason for candidates to join the sector, and for existing staff to stay or leave, finally determining the capacity of the sector to retain high-quality staff. Working conditions include various aspects, such as earnings, job security and career prospects, workload, and the quality of the working environment in the ECEC centre.
Working conditions are generally relatively poor
With ECEC being almost fully provided by private institutions in Ireland, the government’s general approach has consisted in not regulating most aspects of staff’s working conditions. In addition, given that Ireland’s total expenditure in ECEC is relatively low (see Chapter 1), the sector is generally under tight budgets, which has resulted in relatively poor working conditions. There is however large variation across settings depending on their size, opening hours and type of funding (private for-profit or community-based, non-profit).
Salaries are a crucial component of working conditions. Research provides supporting evidence that salary is important for attracting and retaining ECEC staff. Several studies also find a relationship between salaries and the quality of staff’s interactions with children, with better-paid staff having more personal interactions with children and fewer detached ones (Cassidy et al., 2017[41]; Hu et al., 2017[42]). This relationship has also been found in the case of home-based settings (Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[14]). On top of the salary itself, it seems that ECEC staff perceptions regarding the fairness of their wage are also positively correlated with process quality (Cassidy et al., 2017[41]). Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2018, looking at data from nine participating countries, show that staff have low satisfaction with salaries and that this is associated with stress and disengagement at work (OECD, 2020[12]).
Comparable and comprehensive data across countries on salaries of ECEC staff are missing. Data often cover only statutory salaries and salaries of pre-primary staff in the public sector. However, available evidence suggests that wages are low in Ireland, both from a national and international perspective. Statistics from Pobal that cover ECEC and school-age childcare indicate that the average wage, EUR 12.45 per hour in 2019/2020 (EUR 11.99 per hour in 2018/2019), is just above the living wage (EUR 12.30) (i.e. the level of earnings that allowed for a minimum acceptable standard of living) and above the minimum wage (EUR 10.20 per hour). Wages are higher for ECCE room leaders who have a higher qualification (EUR 13.69) and lower for non-ECCE room leaders (EUR 12.53) and assistants, the latter of which are below the living wage. A study commissioned by the government to inform a new funding model compared data on average annual salaries for ECEC teachers in public institutions in a number of countries with Ireland-specific data covering the whole workforce (i.e. including room leaders and assistants) delivering private provision (Table 2.3). It concluded that in terms of absolute levels, average earnings for the ECEC workforce in Ireland were at the lower end of the international distribution but not among the lowest. In terms of earnings relative to the national average, Ireland however has the lowest relative pay of all the countries considered (although for most other participating countries, only teachers were included).
Job security is another important reward for staff’s work. Statistics from Pobal indicate that 76% of ECEC staff had a permanent contract in 2020, which is below the percentage of permanent contracts in Ireland in the private sector (90%). There are variations among staff with assistants being less likely than room leaders to have a permanent contract. Furthermore, staff working with non-ECCE children, both assistants and room leaders (i.e. teachers), are more likely to have a permanent contract compared to their ECCE counterparts. This is related to the fact that the publicly funded ECCE programmes are funded only for the 38 weeks during which they operate and that settings may not need their staff in the summer months (or might be closed). Childminders are self-employed workers and set the terms of their working conditions, based on the fees and other aspects (e.g. hours worked) negotiated with parents. Childminders do benefit from some financial support as well, such as tax reliefs and Childminder Development Grants (for the purchase of equipment), to encourage them to join the formal economy, although take up, while increasing slightly, has remained low (DCEDIY, 2021[16]).
The number of hours worked also has implications on monthly or annual wages. A relatively high share of ECEC staff in Ireland work part-time, although Ireland as a whole has a lower proportion of part-time workers than many other European countries for which data was available (Paull, 2020[43]). The format of the ECCE programme that is delivered in 3 hour sessions per day or 15 hours per week contributes to part-time work especially in centres that do not have a sufficient number of children enrolled in other ECEC activities to propose a full-time contract to their staff. Furthermore, part of ECEC staff are only paid for their activities with children and not for extra-activities (i.e. preparatory work). However, there is no information available on whether part-time work is by choice or not.
Other benefits that contribute to living standards are also at the minimum statutory provision that is available for ECEC staff. A survey of around 2 000 ECEC staff done by the country’s largest trade union shows that 77% of respondents had no sick pay scheme from work, 91% had no pension beyond the State Pension and only 10% had paid maternity leave from work (SIPTU, 2021[34]). In a survey of centre-based providers, a majority of respondents indicated that the capacity to offer attractive additional staff benefits was a key concern in relation to attracting and retaining staff (Crowe, 2020[44]).
The combination of low wages, a low number of paid working hours, and the prevalence of temporary contracts means that working conditions are generally poor in the sector. This makes it complicated for staff to get and pay a mortgage, for instance. Another implication is that most staff (98%) are female while other factors also contribute.
The gap in working conditions and status between ECEC and primary education is large in Ireland. Primary school teachers’ salaries are generally considered as attractive and relatively high from an international perspective. Primary school teachers are highly qualified, have access to and are rewarded for participation in professional development, and benefit from relatively long holiday periods and a pension scheme (Early Childhood Ireland, 2020[45]). The sector is predominantly public with schools being mainly publicly funded and the DE paying for staff wages. Primary school teachers moreover benefit from regulation and standard setting through the country’s Teaching Council, which can help drive professionalism and recognition for teachers’ work. The OECD has noted that gaps in staff’s working conditions between ECEC and primary education makes it difficult for the ECEC sector to attract and retain good candidates. Furthermore, given the fact that the work of teachers (or of staff with more pedagogical responsibilities) in both pre-primary and primary education levels is important and requires skills, knowledge and expertise, educational requirements and salaries could be better aligned (OECD, 2020[12]).
While ECEC staff’s working conditions in Ireland is a source of concern, other countries are in a similar situation. In many countries, working conditions of staff working with the youngest children are also poor (OECD, 2021[1]). In some countries with integrated ECEC settings for children under the age of 3 and pre-primary education (e.g. Norway), working conditions are more favourable and the status of the profession is also higher (OECD, 2020[12]).
Relatively poor working conditions contribute to high turnover rates
The turnover rate (percentage of staff who have left the centres in the past twelve months) was estimated at 18% on average across the country with this rate reaching 38% in Dublin county (Pobal, 2021[6]). The highest retention rates are in the for-profit sector and in settings located in rural areas. There are not many available data to compare with other countries but this is estimated to be a high turnover rate in Ireland. Estimates for countries participating in TALIS Starting Strong 2018 using a different methodology found that the percentage of staff who left the ECEC centre in the previous year ranged from 7% in Norway to 22% in Japan, suggesting that the turnover rate is indeed relatively high in Ireland. Moreover, according to information on the destinations of staff who had left their centre in Ireland, a majority (52%) had left the ECEC sector entirely and the percentage of staff leaving the sector is on the rise (Pobal, 2021[6]). A majority of providers reported experiencing challenges in recruiting suitably qualified staff over the past 12 months.
Most stakeholders consider that relatively poor working conditions contribute to these high turnover rates, especially low wages and the lack of stable contracts for some staff. A survey of ECEC providers indicated that these features were creating a significant challenge to recruitment and retention of staff (Crowe, 2020[44]).
There are several possible implications of high turnover. The quality of ECEC provision can be affected, especially if staff change during the year as it is important for children to be cared for, learn and play in a stable environment. The investment in initial training is partly lost. This is particularly problematic as the government has taken several steps to strengthen initial preparation as is discussed in depth in the previous sections. This is partly done with the expectation that novice staff might in theory be able to change the system towards better quality (e.g. through the implementation of best and innovative practices) as they are more qualified, which does not realise in practice as they are also more likely to leave their role. Furthermore, with staff leaving, it is complicated for institutions in charge of monitoring and inspection to follow up with staff to improve their performance and service delivery. Finally, frequent changes in centre staffing make it difficult for providers to build professional capacity and teams that work together on their own improvement (e.g. through established routines and a shared organisational culture).
To attract and retain ECEC staff, wages need to be aligned with responsibilities
Improving working conditions in the ECEC sector is a necessity to ensure quality provision. Attracting and maintaining a high-quality workforce cannot go without working conditions commensurate with the content, responsibilities and expectations attached to the job.
A general strategy to achieve quality in ECEC when at least part of the workforce has relatively low qualifications and low wages consists in raising the professionalisation of the workforce through clear roles and responsibilities, education requirements and professional development, while ensuring that wages are aligned with these roles. The government has done quite a lot on the professionalisation of the workforce, which is welcomed. In 2002, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (then responsible for the ECEC sector) published a set of occupational role profiles for the ECEC sector and a previous Workforce Development Plan adopted in 2010 already mapped these roles with the National Framework of Qualifications. This work resulted in the development of Professional Award Type Descriptors (PATD) for new initial training programmes at ISCED levels 4 to 7 (NFQ 5 to 9) (also see above section on initial education).
The 2021 Workforce Development Plan includes further work on the definition of roles and career framework for the profession. In particular, it is welcomed to consider how this framework can apply to settings from different sizes. Large settings have often already created other roles to diversify staff’s responsibilities and differentiate wages. The harmonisation of these roles could facilitate staff mobility across these settings. However, small settings might not be able to offer a diversity of roles and might face increasing difficulties to attract new staff as qualification standards on the workforce increase.
Little has been done in the past to align wages with roles and responsibilities on a permanent basis and make sure that staff can have career prospects in the profession. This is partly because, with the sector being private, wages are negotiated between employers (ECEC providers) and employees (ECEC staff) and the government has few direct policy levers to influence the process. This misalignment between qualification requirements and wages has increased in the past years and will continue to do so if nothing is done to align wages with new qualification requirements. With new highly educated staff entering the profession, turnover rates might increase further.
However, the government has recently taken important steps to improve the working conditions of the ECEC workforce. With public investment in ECEC being low and fees for parents being high (see Chapter 1), higher wages cannot come without additional funding from the government as planned as part of the government’s First 5 strategy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government fully subsidised ECEC staff wages (to a maximum ceiling) through the Temporary Wage Subsidy Childcare Scheme. This was replaced in August 2020 by the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme. ECEC employers can benefit from this scheme without fulfilling the standard rule according to which businesses should have experienced a 30% or more reduction in turnover to benefit from the scheme. These actions have been highly welcomed by stakeholders and have supported the view that at least part of the ECEC sector could become publicly funded and managed (also see Chapter 1).
Furthermore, as 17% of staff in community ECEC services were employed by several government-funded programmes in 2019/2020 (Pobal, 2021[6]), the government is in fact already subsidising part of the wage bill in the not-for-profit market. The review team heard about successful transitions from these schemes to regular positions, especially for people on the Community Employment programme designed to help individuals who are long-term unemployed to get back into employment, suggesting that the scheme benefits both ECEC centres and workers.
The government’s preferred approach is to maintain a privately managed sector while increasing public funding. This approach requires that strong mechanisms are in place to ensure that public funding leads to quality and higher wages (and other quality working conditions). Strengthening the monitoring and inspection framework as discussed in Chapter 3 with a focus on process quality would give stronger incentives to settings to offer wages more aligned with roles and responsibilities to attract and retain high-quality candidates. In addition, direct mechanisms linking funding to quality objectives are needed. Since the introduction of the ECCE programme in 2010, the government allocates higher funding to centres with room leaders who hold an ISCED 6 qualification (NFQ level 7) or above through the higher capitation scheme in order to raise wages of room leaders in ECCE rooms and incentivise employment of graduates. An additional capitation is also paid to centres for employing an inclusion co-ordinator (INCO) qualified through the LINC programme. The higher capitation payment has been successful in increasing the qualification level among the ECCE room leaders. However, there is evidence that only part of these additional payments are passed through to the salaries of the graduate staff for whom the payments were made.
Some countries have tried to make additional funding ring-fenced for workers’ pay, for instance by developing some “attestation”. These strategies are likely to lead to large additional administrative burdens without guaranteeing that additional funding translates into higher wages. A more promising avenue consists in strengthening the monitoring and inspection framework while linking public funding to a carefully designed set of parameters that are strong inputs to quality. Fulfilling some wage standards would be part of these parameters.
In mid-2021, following a consultation process led by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, the Minister of State for Business, Employment and Retail established a Joint Labour Committee (JLC) to agree on minimum wages for staff and leaders in ECEC. A JLC is a committee composed of representatives of trade unions, employer organisations and an independent chair. The JLC proposes an Employment Regulation Order (ERO), which, if accepted by the Labour Court, will set minimum requirements for ECEC staff working conditions. The ERO generally sets minimum wages but can also cover several other working conditions such as working hours and training. Through this process, institutions representing both employers and employees in ECEC are asked to engage in discussions within a formal process for setting terms and conditions for employment in ECEC.
The JLC is an important step towards the development of wage standards. For this initiative to succeed, it will be important that institutions involved represent the majority of ECEC providers and ECEC staff. At present, there does not seem to be a common voice for providers or staff, with multiple interests and stakeholders being represented through a range of institutions and associations. On the provider side, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) has recently started bringing employers together. It will also be important that the JLC defines some minimum wages but also considers defining grids for career progression as minimum wages might mainly impact new entrants or novice staff. While the introduction of a JLC is promising, there are challenges related to the fact that the mechanism has not been used much in Ireland in the recent past, with only two JLCs being active, and that they have mainly been used for low-skilled professions.
Furthermore, in October 2021, the Government announced initial features of a new core funding stream as part of the 2022 Budget. Main features related to staff working conditions are summarised below.
The new core funding stream will start in September 2022, be allocated to approximately 4 700 ECEC providers and cover 30 000 staff. It will amount to EUR 69 million in 2022 and EUR 207.3 million in 2023. A one-off transition fund of EUR 37 million will support providers before the new funding stream comes into place.
The new core funding scheme is contingent on an ERO being agreed to determine minimum wages and terms and conditions of employment for ECEC staff. If there is no agreement on an ERO, a significant proportion of the funding will not be made available. Another condition is a commitment from providers not to increase parental fees.
This additional funding is planned to cover the costs coming from the adoption of an ERO related to higher wages and improved terms and conditions of employment. It also aims to fund staff’s work on tasks to be performed without children, curriculum implementation, and support for degree-qualified staff.
This funding will be allocated to providers according to their capacity. Higher level of funding will be allocated to centres with the youngest children and with more qualified staff.
This announcement clarifies future public funding available to the sector and gives room for negotiations of improved working conditions within the JLC while supporting the financial sustainability of ECEC provision. Linking funding to the adoption of an ERO provides incentives to achieve an agreement and ensures that higher funding translates into improved wages and other working conditions. This additional funding is presented as the beginning of a multi-annual investment plan, which should also facilitate the adoption of working conditions standards that have long-term financial impacts for ECEC providers.
Developing the use of more favourable employment contracts for ECEC staff
ECEC staff who do not have a permanent contract can be in very precarious and unstable situations. For instance, some contracts only cover the ECCE programme year and staff are on unemployment benefits during the summer break. This is particularly the case for small settings while larger settings have more flexibility to organise the provision of services in a way so as to employ staff on a permanent basis.
Ensuring that fixed-term contracts are stepping stones towards permanent contracts is another important priority. The Irish Labour legislation stipulates that employees cannot remain on a series of fixed-term contracts indefinitely and that the combined duration of the contracts shall not exceed four years. After this, if the employer wishes the employee to continue, it must be with a contract of indefinite duration. However, given the high turnover rate in the sector, the government might consider ways to encourage quicker transitions towards a permanent contract. Like for wages, revisions to the funding framework (discussed at the time of writing for the creation of a new funding model) are important to meet this goal. Moving to a system in which the allocation of funding is conditional on a number of criteria including qualifications, wages and the employment contract of the workforce, as done in the announcement on the 2022 budget (through the contingency on an ERO being adopted), can steer improvement in working conditions. Acknowledging that the scope of agreements under a JLC is determined by the parties to the JLC and not by the government, it will be important that the JLC covers several aspects of the terms and conditions of employment, including regulations of fixed-term contracts, and examines the possibility to reduce the basis of eligibility for a contract of indefinite duration as this is the case for school teachers (3 years instead of 4 years). This is aligned with the mandate of the JLC as stated by the Minister: “An agreement on a new set of terms and conditions of employment will help maintain and grow the talented pool of people working in the sector as well as providing security and opportunity for career development in the Early Years’ and Childcare sectors.”
The prevalence of temporary and part-time contracts is also related to the organisation of the ECEC sector that is quite fragmented, with main “sessions” that last a limited number of hours such as the ECCE programme and complementary activities (e.g. breakfast clubs and after school). As discussed above, ensuring that regulations (e.g. on staff qualification) and related funding are attached to roles and responsibilities rather than to programmes would encourage mobility of staff across programmes and should help the development of full-time contracts. For instance, regulations and related funding should encourage the recruitment of room leaders (i.e. teachers) who could for instance work in ECCE sessions and in sessions for younger children with a pedagogical leadership role (see section on leadership). Higher qualified staff would then also benefit the youngest children.
Setting protected times for activities to be performed without children
The quality of a working environment also includes non-economic aspects of jobs, such as the nature and content of the tasks at hand and working time arrangements (Cazes, Hijzen and Saint-Martin, 2015[40]). A heavy workload with multiple ongoing tasks that demand persistent physical, psychological or emotional efforts can lead to less engagement and commitment, with detrimental effects on classroom or playgroup practices (Ansari et al., 2020[46]). There is empirical evidence suggesting that excessive demands and work overload (i.e. high demand, not enough time, short of assistance) are negatively associated with process quality (Aboagye et al., 2020[47]; Aboagye et al., 2020[48]; Chen, Phillips and Izci, 2018[49])..
ECEC staff’s work includes a variety of responsibilities and activities that go beyond working directly with children and all contribute to process quality. These include individual planning or preparing play and learning activities; collaborating and speaking with colleagues and parents or guardians; documenting children’s development, well-being and learning; attending professional development activities; and administrative tasks. Some countries have regulations to ensure that staff have paid time allocated to tasks that are performed without children, generally more often for teachers than assistants (OECD, 2021[1]).
In Ireland, there is no regulation to protect time for these activities; and with a substantial share of ECEC staff having part-time jobs where they’re only paid for the hours dedicated directly to children, it is likely that they perform these tasks outside their paid hours. In 2018/2019, 78% of staff had between 1 and 5 hours per week without child contact (Pobal, 2021[6]), which seems like a low number compared to some other countries (e.g. TALIS Starting Strong 2018 participating countries). Percentages of staff with a small number of hours without children are higher for staff in community services than in for-profit ones. Providers receive funding from the government to perform the administrative work but this does not seem to be sufficient. Administrative demands and paperwork have apparently increased greatly over time in response to new funding schemes and inspection requirements (see Chapter 3). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has created new demands on staff time for managing health and safety protocols, maintaining communication with parents through new tools such as digital applications, among others. There is large variation across centres, with large ones being more likely to provide paid non-contact time.
There are costs to the provision of non-contact time, and in centres where there is more non-contact time the services are generally more expensive (Crowe, 2020[44]). Better defined working hours and the inclusion of protected time for activities to be performed without children as part of the employment contract could be examined by the JLC. This will also be important to facilitate staff’s engagement in professional learning and development, including in informal ways and in collaboration with their peers as discussed in the previous section.
Context
Leadership is a key element for developing and sustaining quality in ECEC by creating a stimulating environment for both staff and children. Leaders of ECEC settings have an important role to play in providing the conditions for staff to develop high-quality practices, for instance by building a climate of trust and collaboration, facilitating staff engagement in professional learning and addressing sources of stress for staff in their work (OECD, 2021[1]; Douglass, 2019[50]). Findings from the TALIS Starting Strong 2018 survey show that in centres in which leaders set a clear vision, staff report a stronger sense of self-efficacy (OECD, 2020[51]). Leadership is also important for translating policies into practice, and driving innovation and change in systems (OECD, 2019[10]; OECD, 2015[52]).
While the importance of leadership seems to be receiving greater attention in recent and ongoing policy initiatives, such as the country’s First 5 strategy and the Workforce Development Plan, attention to leadership development in ECEC settings has thus far been rather incipient in Ireland. As highlighted in the previous section, there are no structured career development opportunities for ECEC staff in registered ECEC centres and different roles in ECEC settings are not well defined. This also applies to leadership and there is no common understanding of the leadership roles and structures required for quality ECEC services in Ireland and the functions such roles should entail.
The organisation of leadership and management in registered ECEC centres in Ireland is largely up to individual centres and/or the providers they belong to. Centres may be led by a manager who can be the owner of the centre or be employed by the service if belonging to a larger group. Managers may work with children and take part in learning and play as part of their role or dedicate themselves fully to their management role. Services must designate a staff member in charge to replace the managers in their absence. Depending on the size of the centre, managers may be supported by a deputy and administrative staff as well. As the review team learnt during its missions, ECEC centres in Ireland may establish further leadership roles for staff, such as roles related to quality improvement, curriculum development, preparation for inspection or fire safety.
In 2019/2020, more than half of all managers (centre managers and deputy managers) were also the owners of their service (56% or 2 287), and over three-quarters of all managers (owners or not) also worked with children. Owner-managers were more likely to also work with children (84%) than managers employed by their service (73%). There were 1 219 deputy managers as well as 565 clerical staff (Pobal, 2021[6]).
Recent policies have created specific leadership positions in ECEC centres to support the creation of inclusive environments, underpinned by qualification requirements and additional funding for ECEC centres. Inclusion coordinators (INCOs), which are part of AIM to support children with a disability (see Chapter 1), are prepared for their role through a dedicated Leadership for Inclusion in the Early Years (LINC) training programme as well as subsequent professional development opportunities (see Box 2.3).
Established in 2016 in relation to the AIM programme, Leadership for Inclusion in Early Years (LINC) is an ISCED 5 (NFQ Level 6) Special Purpose Award designed to support the inclusion of children with a disability in the ECCE programme. The programme aims to prepare participants to adopt a leadership role within ECEC settings that enables them to support and supervise other staff in the setting to plan for, implement and review inclusive practices. It is delivered by a consortium led by Mary Immaculate College, and includes other academic and sector organisations. Participants, who come with a diverse profile in terms of previous qualifications and experience, are nominated by their employer and continue working while undertaking the programme.
The programme builds on an innovative competency-based blended leadership adult learning methodology. A Competency Framework for Inclusion in Early Childhood Care and Education forms the basis of the programme, which employs a variety of methods to ensure it is accessible to learners with a range of learning styles and experiences. Each of the programme’s six modules comprises one face-to-face day (approx. six hours) along with six weekly online ‘units’ of both synchronous and asynchronous learning materials. A text-based tutorial system has been used for communication among learners themselves and with their tutors. Finally, a key element of the programme is the mentoring session in which learners meet with their tutor on a one-to-one basis and reflect on their practice. Learners have also been supported through a range of services, both academically and in terms of ICT requirements.
In 2019, up to 1 150 free training places with bursaries were made available to pre-school practitioners in the programme. By autumn 2020, approximately 3 450 practitioners had completed the programme, and 60% of ECCE settings had a qualified inclusion co-ordinator. Internal information coming from self-evaluation reports of the programme suggest high satisfaction rates among participants. Participants seem to value in particular the programme’s online recorded lessons, face-to-face classroom sessions and mentoring visits for their learning.
Sources: Ring, E and L. O’Sullivan (2019[53]), “Creating Spaces Where Diversity Is the Norm: An innovative competency-based blended learning teacher education program in Ireland”; LINC Consortium (2019[54]), Interim Evaluation of the Leadership for INClusion in the Early Years (LINC) Programme.; Breen, F. et al. (2018[55]), “LINC Programme: Enabling Leadership for Inclusion through an Innovative Competency-Based Blended Adult Continuing Professional Learning Programme”
Attention to leadership development in policy is incipient, but leadership will be key for making change happen in ECEC settings
The review team encourages Ireland to pursue plans to include leadership as a core element of ongoing and future policy initiatives, such as the Workforce Development Plan, and to consider how leadership capacity can be further developed across the sector.
Indeed, Ireland is not alone in this challenge, as the Quality beyond Regulations project demonstrated. When asking participating countries about regulations and policies for ECEC centre leaders, many were unable to provide information, which reflects that leadership in ECEC has not received much attention so far, either in research or policies (OECD, 2021[1]). The need to consider how leadership is organised and developed also seemed to be recognised by various stakeholders interviewed for the missions of the review team.
Leadership will be an important condition for the success of ongoing policy initiatives to improve quality in ECEC in Ireland, be it through further staff development which relies largely on centres and staff themselves, through greater consistency in the implementation of the Aistear curriculum and Síolta quality frameworks, or through a greater focus on and capacity for self-evaluation as part of the inspection and monitoring framework (see Chapter 3). At the same time, more opportunities for leadership as part of a broader career structure could help make the sector more attractive and help retain staff, if supported by adequate working conditions (more on this in the section on working conditions).
To further develop leadership in the sector, it will be important to gain a better understanding of the current leadership arrangements and how they differ across types of centres (e.g. by commissioning related research). As data from Pobal for 2019/2020 suggest, leadership structures clearly differ across private for-profit and community providers, and urban and rural locations. Almost three-quarters of all managers worked in a private for-profit ECEC centre (72%), and managers were almost twice as likely to work in an urban centre (66%) (Pobal, 2021[6]). This should also include an assessment of how roles and responsibilities are distributed between centres and managers who are employed by that centre, and different types of staff within centres (e.g. managers, deputy managers and other staff).
Based on a deeper understanding of the current leadership arrangements, a shared understanding of the different leadership functions that are needed in different types of services, and the role of staff leadership within these, can be developed. This needs to encompass the full range of leadership functions, from pedagogical leadership to administration and management, community engagement and family involvement. As suggested by stakeholders during the missions, any future leadership concept would benefit from being linked to an overall vision of the function of ECEC centres within their community, and how leadership can promote this. The country’s quality and curriculum frameworks (Síolta and Aistear) would provide a good basis for this. The leadership roles and functions need to then be translated into a profile of values, knowledge and skills to be developed and promoted through elements such as leadership preparation and training, and monitoring and inspection. Setting and promoting expectations about leadership through such levers will be important in a context where centres and services have a large degree of autonomy to define their leadership structures.
The conception of leadership roles differs across countries and sometimes within them (OECD, 2021[1]; OECD, 2020[12]), so Ireland will have to define models that are best suited for its particular context and how they can best support staff in working with children. However, other countries may provide inspiration for reflections of leadership in Ireland. While recognising that leadership always depends on specific contexts, such as the children served in a centre, there should be a strong focus on pedagogical leadership, and the role of leadership for staff management and development (OECD, 2021[1]; OECD, 2020[12]; Douglass, 2019[50]).
As TALIS Starting Strong 2018 data suggest, the size of centres appears to be an important factor influencing the way leaders spend their time, and centres of different sizes may require different leadership structures (OECD, 2020[12]). In Ireland, the organisation of the ECEC sector with relatively small centres and short opening hours does not facilitate the development of leadership. Particular attention will therefore have to be paid to the large number of small centres in the country and how leadership can be developed in and for these types of settings. Israel, which also has a large number of small centres and where pedagogical work with children is also an essential part of leaders’ role, provides an example for a leadership model for smaller settings (Box 2.4) (OECD, 2020[12]). Moving from ECCE “sessions” to more integrated centres with a clear role for leaders could support quality. On the other hand, there are also relatively large for-profit ECEC centres that might belong to a commercial provider chain. Leaders of these centres might focus more on administrative leadership and adopt profit-driven management strategies. As the government plans to increase public funding in the sector, it will be important to ensure that leaders of these centres have the incentives, knowledge and skills to develop quality improvement policies aligned with the government’ objectives.
Building the capacity of leadership in community settings should be a further priority. As the review team learnt during its missions, this part of the Irish ECEC system has undergone significant change as overall provision has expanded, and today faces challenges in governance and leadership. As requirements have expanded (e.g. linked to funding through the ECCE programme, or to registration as a limited company), the management of community services (typically overseen by a Board of Management or Management Committee) has become more complex, creating new demands in terms of compliance with different regulations (e.g. ECEC-specific regulations as well as charity-specific regulations). This needs to be seen within a broader vision of ECEC provision in Ireland (see Chapter 1).
In 2013, the Ministry of Education of Israel enacted a reform related to the resourcing of the ECEC sector. The reform encompassed three main elements: 1) an additional staff member for ECEC centres with over 30 children aged 3 to 4; 2) a differential budget to enrich the structural and pedagogical environment; and 3) support from a leading teacher.
A leading teacher is a teacher who stands out in their educational activities, and is therefore appointed by the instructor/supervisor (district level positions) to serve as a leading teacher, alongside their duty as a teacher who manages an ECEC centre by themselves. Each leading teacher supports teachers from 10 to 15 ECEC centres (within a geographical district), for 30 hours per year (recognised for promotion and salary increase), during which they mainly support the professional needs of teachers from ECEC centres other than their own and promote community-related issues. To this end, a leading teacher is required to first participate in a year-long pre-determined training and undergoes continuous professional development activities. There are currently about 1 000 leading teachers (out of 22 000 teachers in pre-primary centres – leaders and substitutes, so their share is approximately 5% of all teachers).
The leading teacher role is considered as mid-level leadership (higher than a teacher, but lower than instructor/supervisor), which offers teachers a career development path. While both instructor and supervisor are district level positions, there is a hierarchy: the supervisor, who is more senior than the instructor, is responsible for approximately 100 to 120 ECEC centres within a certain geographical district. The instructor is either a specialist in a given content domain or a multidisciplinary expert. Instructors guide and instruct the staff of several ECEC centres within the district, depending on the relevance of their expertise to teachers' needs in a given centre.
Source: OECD (2020[12]), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.
There are some interesting initiatives to develop leadership as part of training and quality support, but larger investments in leadership capacity building are required
There is also scope to better support leadership through initial and continuous education and training programmes. Leadership preparation and training can help set expectations to engage in specific functions and develop the necessary skills to fulfil them. As reported by the inspectorate of the Department of Education (DE), leadership has been found as one of the weakest areas in the ECEC sector in the last five years, needing a lot of investment and capacity building, such as through initial education and training.
Existing initiatives for leadership development in Ireland are limited, although they provide a basis to build on (e.g. Leadership for Inclusion (LINC) training programme, see Box 2.3). The guidelines for graduate-level initial education programmes (PACG) described in the section on staff training, recommend to include various aspects of leadership, such as curriculum implementation, team management and stakeholder engagement (Box 2.5). However, not all staff with degree-level qualifications are leaders, and not all leaders hold degrees (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]). It will be important that this is included in the standards (PATD) and ECEC programmes offered in the further education and training (FET) sector.
Leaders do not always come from within the ECEC sector. It is therefore important to also develop specific programmes for leaders that cover the main functions of leadership including both administrative and pedagogical leadership. As the inspectorate of the Department of Education highlighted, there is no common understanding of the professional role of leaders, who often perceive themselves as organisational managers of a business rather than as pedagogical leaders driving quality. This probably applies in particular to leaders and owner-managers who are not working with children, as no qualification requirements exist for these staff. For leaders working with children, regulations do require them to hold at least a major award in early learning and care at ISCED level 4 (NQF Level 5) (Childcare Act 1991 [Early Years Services] Regulations 2016) (Frontier Economics, 2021[5]).
Inspection and monitoring processes (analysed in depth in Chapter 3) can also play an important role in promoting quality leadership in ECEC centres. In Ireland, management and leadership are included in the inspection frameworks developed and used by the Early Years Inspectorate of Tusla, the regulator (for all centre-based care) and the education-focused inspections of the Department for Education (for ECCE rooms serving children aged 2 years and 8 months and older only, although at the time of writing plans are underway to extend inspections to earlier years):
The Quality and Regulatory Framework of Tusla assesses management policies and procedures, which include: governance arrangements, administrative processes, designated person-in-charge procedures, recruitment policy, vetting, staff supervision policy, internal communications system, the staff roster, staff planning, the setting’s annual review, records of individual children and data protection measures, and service records (Tusla, 2018[56]).
The Quality Framework for Early Years Education of DE inspections examines the quality of leadership as part of the framework’s Area 4, “Quality of management and leadership for learning”. The related outcomes refer to 1) planning, review and evaluation are informed by Síolta (the quality framework); 2) management within the setting provides for a high quality learning and development experience for children; 3) clear two-way channels of communication are fostered between the early years setting, parents, families and children; and 4) transitions into, from and within the setting are managed effectively to support children’s learning and development (DES, 2018[57]).
As the review team learnt during its missions, leadership and management are considered very important for addressing quality issues identified by the different inspections. Tusla, for instance, noted that management is deemed a key proxy for the quality of the service. However, the DE inspection for instance acknowledged that evaluations of leadership were still often light touch (also compared to the school level) given where ECEC centres are at in terms of leadership capacity. The framework and inspections could be further used to promote different aspects of leadership in settings, such as leadership for learning, organisational and distributed leadership (e.g. by leaders joining DE inspections of other settings, further developing self-evaluation practices and skills).
Professional Awards Criteria and Guidelines (PACG)
Curriculum implementation and pedagogy. PACG-aligned graduate awards include training on generating an appropriate curriculum that stimulates and promotes positive learning dispositions, emergent literacy, maths and science skills. Alongside curriculum development, there is training on pedagogy: building strong pedagogical relationships with children and co-constructing pedagogical knowledge together with children.
Establishing collaborative relationships with other institutions. According to the PACG, graduates should be trained to build up support for ELC settings within local communities and establish collaborative relationships with other professionals (e.g. health and social services).
Supporting educators/assistants. Graduates should be trained in implementing effective and democratic organisational structures and processes.
Managing teams and encouraging staff collaboration. Degree programmes should include aspects such as sharing and exchanging expertise with colleagues in team meetings, engaging in discussion and learning from disagreement.
Engaging with families and communities. Graduates should be trained to make the cultural heritage of local communities accessible to children; involve children in community-based projects (festivals, cultural events, etc.); have knowledge of working with parents and local communities (knowledge about families, poverty and diversity); establish partnership relationships with parents based on mutual understanding, trust and co-operation; and provide effective communication with all stakeholders and partners.
Children’s interactions with materials and space. Graduates are trained in supporting children’s symbolic play through appropriate provision of structured and unstructured materials.
Leadership responsibilities are not sufficiently reflected in remuneration and other working conditions
Within Ireland’s market-based model of private provision of ECEC, and as described in the section on working conditions, the terms of employment for centre managers and other leaders are established by centres and providers themselves. There are no central frameworks or conditions, such as centrally defined salary scales, although this is the goal of the recently established Joint Labour Committee. According to available information, the nature of remuneration differs for managers who are also owners of their centre or setting, and managers who are employed by their provider, taking the form of an annual salary, an hourly wage or other income. Among managers employed by their service, most leaders receive an hourly wage for their work (70.6% in 2019/2020). Owner-managers are most likely to receive other income, e.g. drawing non-fixed income from the business (66.2% in 2019/2020) (Pobal, 2021[6]).
The leadership of ECEC centres entails a variety of functions and responsibilities, the balance of which differs across and within countries depending on specific contexts and needs. Regardless of particular job profiles, the ECEC centre leadership role entails the juggling of multiple tasks and the careful management of time and resources. The demanding nature of ECEC centre leadership should be sufficiently reflected in employment conditions, such as remuneration, to help attract staff to leadership roles and encourage them to stay. Adequate support systems may help mitigate work-related stress, such as that stemming from too much administrative work, and support leaders in balancing their functions.
References
[47] Aboagye, M. et al. (2020), “Managing conflictual teacher-child relationship in pre-schools: A preliminary test of the job resources buffering-effect hypothesis in an emerging economy”, Children and Youth Services Review.
[48] Aboagye, M. et al. (2020), “Finding something good in the bad: the curvilinear emotional demand-conflict teacher–child relationship link”, Early Child Development and Care, pp. 1-18.
[46] Ansari, A. et al. (2020), “Preschool Teachers’ Emotional Exhaustion in Relation to Classroom Instruction and Teacher-child Interactions”, Early Education and Development, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1848301.
[22] Balduzzi, L. and A. Lazzari (2015), “Mentoring practices in workplace-based professional preparation: a critical analysis of policy developments in the Italian context”, Early Years,, pp. 35:2, 124-138.
[37] Bayly, B. et al. (2020), “Leveraging self-determination theory to understand which preschool teachers benefit most from a professional development intervention”, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education.
[33] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.
[13] Branigan, R. and M. Ciarán (2020), Focused Policy Assessment of the Early Childhood Care and Education Higher Capitation Payment, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin, https://igees.gov.ie/focused-policy-assessment-of-the-early-childhood-care-and-education-higher-capitation-payment/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
[55] Breen, F. et al. (2018), “LINC Programme: Enabling Leadership for Inclusion through an Innovative Competency-Based Blended Adult Continuing Professional Learning Programme”, Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education,, pp. 99-115, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1197457 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
[41] Cassidy, D. et al. (2017), “Teacher work environments are toddler learning environments: teacher professional well-being, classroom emotional support, and toddlers’ emotional expressions and behaviours”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 187/11, pp. 1666-1678, https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516.
[40] Cazes, S., A. Hijzen and A. Saint-Martin (2015), “Measuring and Assessing Job Quality: The OECD Job Quality Framework”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 174, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrp02kjw1mr-en.
[49] Chen, S., B. Phillips and B. Izci (2018), “Teacher–child relational conflict in Head Start – exploring the roles of child behaviour, teacher stress, and bias, and classroom environment”, Early Child Development and Care, pp. 1174-1186.
[39] Citizen’s Assembly on Gender Equality (2021), Report of the Citizen’s Assembly on Gender Equality, Citizens’ Assembly, Dublin, http://citizensassembly.ie/en/about-the-citizens-assembly/report-of-the-citizens-assembly-on-gender-equality.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
[44] Crowe (2020), Final Report to Department of Children & Youth Affairs: Cost of Providing Quality Childcare.
[16] DCEDIY (2021), National Action Plan for Childminding (2021-2028), Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Dublin, https://bit.ly/ChildmindingActionPlan (accessed on 7 September 2021).
[3] DCEDIY (2021), Workforce Development Plan Phase 1 Progress Report, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Dublin, https://assets.gov.ie/135093/54a31bf1-e9cd-41dc-8362-a64c1456d1f7.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2021).
[4] DCYA (2019), Workforce Development Plan for the ELC/SAC Sector. Background Note and Draft Terms of Reference for the Steering Group, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin, https://assets.gov.ie/26650/a384c2888749488d8e93badc501507b3.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2021).
[20] DDLETB (2020), Early Learning and Care Phase 1 Consultation November 2020 Childcare (early childhood) Service Providers, DDLETB ELC Programme Development Group, Dublin, http://www.limerickchildcare.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ELC-Consultation-Phase-1-Information-Pack.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2021).
[17] DES (2019), Professional Award Criteria and Guidelines for Initial Profesional Education (Level 7 and Level 8) Degree Programmes for the Early Learning and Care (ELC) Sector in Ireland, https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Early-Childhood/professional-award-criteria-and-guidelines-for-initial-professional-education-l7-8-degree-programmes-elc-ireland.pdf (accessed on June 2020).
[57] DES (2018), A Guide to Early Years Education Inspection (EYEI), Department of Education and Skills, Dublin, https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/guide-to-early-years-education-inspections.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2021).
[38] Doherty, G. et al. (2006), “Predictors of quality in family child care”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 21/3, pp. 296-312, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.006.
[50] Douglass, A. (2019), “Leadership for quality early childhood education and care”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 211, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e563bae-en.
[45] Early Childhood Ireland (2020), Pathways to Better Prospects: Delivering Proper Terms and Conditions for the Early Years Workforce in Ireland A Literature Review..
[14] Eckhardt, A. and F. Egert (2020), “Predictors for the quality of family child care: A meta-analysis”, Children and Youth Services Review.
[27] Egert, F., V. Dederer and R. Fukkink (2020), “The impact of in-service professional development on the quality of teacher-child interactions in early education and care: A meta-analysis”, Educational Research Review.
[23] Flämig, K., A. König and N. Spiekermann (2015), “Potentials, dissonances and reform initiatives in field-based learning and mentoring practices in the early childhood sector in Germany”, Early Years, pp. 211-226.
[5] Frontier Economics (2021), OECD Country Background Report for the OECD Quality Beyond Regulations Project – Early Learning and Care in Ireland, Frontier Economics, London, https://assets.gov.ie/138286/2a4c0b9d-e605-4f64-9fa8-a4ae70f7f273.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
[11] Government of Ireland (2019), First 5: A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families 2019-2028, https://first5.gov.ie (accessed on 8 September 2021).
[26] Hamre, B., A. Partee and C. Mulcahy (2017), “Enhancing the impact of professional development in the context of preschool expansion”, AERA Open.
[42] Hu, B. et al. (2017), “Are structural quality indicators associated with preschool process quality in China? An exploration of threshold effects”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 163-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.006.
[24] Kaarby, K. and I. Lindboe (2016), “The workplace as learning environment in early childhood teacher education: An investigation of work-based education”, Higher Education Pedagogies, pp. 106-120.
[35] Kyndt, E. et al. (2016), “Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86/4, pp. 1111-1150, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627864.
[54] LINC Consortium (2019), Interim Evaluation of the Leadership for INClusion inthe Early Years (LINC) Programme, http://bit.ly/LINC_Interim_Evaluation (accessed on 4 October 2021).
[8] Lin, Y. and K. Magnuson (2018), “Classroom quality and children’s academic skills in child care centers: Understanding the role of teacher qualifications”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 215-227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.003.
[7] Manning, M. et al. (2019), “Is teacher qualification associated with the quality of the early childhood education and care environment? A meta-analytic review”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 89/3, pp. 370-415, https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654319837540.
[28] Markussen-Brown, J. et al. (2017), “The effects of language-and literacy-focused professional development on early educators and children: A best-evidence meta-analysis”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, pp. 97-115.
[25] Oberhuemer, P. (2015), Seeking New Cultures of Cooperation: A Cross-national Analysis of Workplace-based Learning and Mentoring Practices in Early Years Professional Education/Training, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2015.1028218.
[1] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
[12] OECD (2020), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.
[51] OECD (2020), Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b90bba3d-en.
[10] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
[2] OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en.
[52] OECD (2015), Schooling Redesigned, OECD, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en.
[43] Paull, G. (2020), Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare Towards a New Funding Model: Review of Working Conditions for Staff in Early Learning and Care, https://first5fundingmodel.gov.ie/publications-2/.
[30] Peleman, B. et al. (2018), “Continuous professional development and ECEC quality: Findings from a European systematic literature review”, European Journal of Education, pp. 9-22.
[6] Pobal (2021), Annual Early Years Sector Profile Report 2019/2020, Pobal, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/137583/?page=null (accessed on 26 August 2021).
[19] QQI (2019), Changes on the way for awards standards in Early Learning and Care, https://www.qqi.ie/News/Pages/Changes-on-the-way-for-awards-standards-in-Early-Learning-and-Care.aspx (accessed on 9 September 2021).
[18] QQI (2019), Professional Award-type Descriptors at NFQ Levels 5 to 8: Annotated for QQI Early Learning and Care (ELC) Awards, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, Dublin, https://www.qqi.ie/Downloads/Professional%20Award%20Type%20Descriptors%20at%20NFQ%20Levels%205-8%20%28Annotated%20for%20QQI%20ELC%20Awards%29.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2021).
[53] Ring, E. and L. O’Sullivan (2019), “Creating Spaces Where Diversity Is the Norm: An innovative competency-based blended learning teacher education program in Ireland”, Childhood Education, Vol. 95/2, pp. 29-39, https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2019.1593758.
[21] Sahlberg, P. (2019), The Structure of Teacher Education in Ireland: Review of Progress in Implementing Reform, Higher Education Authority (HEA), Dublin, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2019/05/HEA-Structure-of-Teacher-Education.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
[31] Sandilos, L. et al. (2018), “Does professional development reduce the influence of teacher stress on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms?”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, pp. 280-290.
[15] Schaack, D., V. Le and C. Setodji (2017), “Home-based child care provider education and specialized training: Associations with caregiving quality and toddler social-emotional and cognitive outcomes”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 28/6, pp. 655-668, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1321927.
[34] SIPTU (2021), SIPTU Big Start CampaignThe Early Years Professionals’ Survey 2020, SIPTU, Dublin, https://www.siptu.ie/media/publications/file_22249_en.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
[32] Totenhagen, C. et al. (2016), Retaining Early Childhood Education Workers: A Review of the Empirical Literature, Taylor and Francis Inc., https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1214652.
[56] Tusla (2018), Quality and Regulatory Framework: Full Day Care Service and Part-Time Day Care Service, Early Years Inspectorate, Tusla, Dublin, https://www.tusla.ie/services/preschool-services/early-years-quality-and-regulatory-framework (accessed on 8 27 2021).
[36] Urban, M., S. Robson and V. Scacchi (2017), Review of Occupational Role Profiles in Ireland in Early Childhood Education and Care, University of Roehampton, Early Childhood Research Centre (ECRC), London, https://assets.gov.ie/24908/d9cb10bb2d9141f5b5288722ea13194c.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2021).
[9] von Suchodoletz, A. et al. (2020), “Investigating quality indicators of early childhood education programs in Kosovo, Ukraine and Finland”, International Journal of Early Years Education, pp. 1-17.
[29] Werner, C. et al. (2016), “Do intervention programs in child care promote the quality of caregiver-child interactions? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”, Prevention Science, pp. 259-273.
Source: https://nfq.qqi.ie (accessed 1 November 2021).